The High Court · 2025

Petition under section '151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support pf the petition, ine Hign Court may be pleased to authorize Mr.Paruchuri Jagdish to represent Mr.Divi satchandra Kiran and sign on all petitions, affidavits, etc., in the above connected case lA NO: 4 OF 2024 Petition under order 32 of the civil Rules of practice R/w. Section 151 of c-P.c. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to permit GpA Holder as the lawful agent of the petitioners/appellants to file and contest the above civil ltliscellaneous Appeal on behalf of the petitioners/appellants . Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. DUWA PAVAN KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI T. NATRAJ The Court delivered the following Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA AND CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.575 of2024 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sm. Justice P.Sree Sudha) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Order dJted O1.O7.2024 in Arb.O.P.No.34 of 2024, passed by the learned XXV-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

2. The Wisdom Mines trducational Society/respondent herein represented by its authorized signatory V.Kesavan, had filed an application against the appellants herein before the trial Court uide Arb.O.P.No.34 of 2024, under Section 9 of Arbitration ald Conciliation Act, 1996. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides allowed the application with costs. Aggrieved by the said Order, respondents therein preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are the joint owners of the subject property and they let out the same to respondent Society by way of unregistered and unstamped lease deed dated 14. 11.2O18. The respondent Z Society was running a school named "Mount Banyan School", in the said property, but it was not paying rents regularly, as such appellants issued legal notice to the respondent on O5.O7.2021, terminating the lease deed. On that, respondent Society has issued reply notice on I4.O7 .2021' . A copy of the legal notice and reply notice are f,rled beiore this Court. The respondent Society requested time till November, 2023, to find an alternate premise tolrelocate the school and also assured the appellants that they will pay the arrears of rent and also continue to pay the rentals to the concerned owner in time. Appellants have also categoricaily informed to the respondent Society that lease wili not be renewed after November , 2023.

4. Thereafter, appellants executed an unregistered gift deed dated 2O.O7 .2021, in favour of one Chandravadana, and handed over al1 the rights over the property in her favour. The said Chandravadana, in turn sold the property to Divi Properties Pvt. Ltd., i.e, part of the subject property through a sale deed bearing document No. 1327 of 2022, dated, 20.O4.2022, and t}:.e balance through a sale deed bearing No. 1156 ol 2024, dated

23.O3.2O24. In November, 2O23, respondent Society refused to vacate the premises and also to pay the arrears of rents and accordingly, respondent Society got issued legal notice to the 3 appellants on O7.O2.2O24, invoking the arbitration clause uide clause 9.2 of the lease agreement dated 14.11.2O18. Thereafter, appellants received summons from the trial Court in O.S.No.668 of 2024, which was filed by the respondent Society, for perpetual injunction. Upon discussions and deliberations, respondent Society intended to withdraw the same and the appellants had also frled a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on 21.O2.2O24, seeking to refer the matter for arbitration. Subsequently, respondent Society has filed a withdrawal petition on O1.O4.2O24 uide LA.No.801 of 2024 in O.S.No.668 of 2024. The trial Court allowed the said application and dismissed the suit on

03.O4.2024, on the ground that matter was settled out of Court.

5. Later, respondent Societ5r hled a writ petition uide W.P.No.8907 of 2024, witl: a mola fide intention challenging the proceedings bearing No.R.C.No.O466 /A2 /2024, dated L1.O3.2O24, falsely stating that suit was still pending. The said writ petition was disposed of on 04.O4.2024. The respondent Society and their President and Vice-President played fraud on the Court basing on the fraudulent representation. The respondent Society taking undue advantage of the lease deed dated 14. 11.2018, fraudulently filed a petition in Arb.O.P.No.34 4 of 2024, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and appellants herein have also filed their counter to the said petition, but the trial Court allowed' the said petition by Order dated 07.O7.2024.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellants herein mainly contended that the lease deed dated 14. 11.2018, was terminated on O5.O7.2O21 and thus there was no agreement between both the parties and the question of following terms under the arbitration agreement does not arise. He also contended that there was incorrect interpretation of legal principles. The trial Court erred in observing that the respondent Society has made ott prima facie case, balance of convenience and established irreparable loss and no propei reasons were assigned. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court.

7. Heard arguments ofboth sides and perused the record

8. Learned Counsel for the appellants reiied upon the decision of the High Court Delhi, in the case of National 5 Textile Corporation Ltd., and another Vs,Ashaal Vad.eraa,l , in:which the Court held that arbitration clause finding place in earlier lease deed cannot be invoked by a tenant and also held as follows: "5. It is settled laut that in cose of leose of immouable , properties, if the lease is for a period of one gear or more ' lease deed is required to be compulsorilg registered. .. ...The Court cannot look into or relg upon an :.' unregistered document uthich purports to create lease of , one gear or more than one geor. If a document is inadmissible because of its non-registration or because of its not hauing proper stannp dutg, all its terms are inadmissible including the one tuhich prouides for an arbitration betuteen the parties. An arbitration agreement . can be enforced onlg along toith the contract betu.seen the .l parties and such a contract must be a ualid contract, . admissible under lau.t. If a contract is not admissible in la u.t, euery clause of it is inadmissible in lau including arbitration clause."

9. Learned Counsel for the appellants also relied upon the decision of the High Court of Delhi, in the case of Vardhannan Spinning and General Mills Ltd., Vs.Veena Kurnari Wadhauan,2 in which it was held tllat "uhere the lease deed is inadmissible for uant of registration, tlte term regording reference to arbitration in case of a dispute, cannot be enforced and accordinglg proceedings before a Court cannot be staged under Section 84 of the Arbitration Act." ' 2008 scc onlire Del 1201 '? 1997 SCC Online Det 694 6

10. In fact, respondent Society entered into lease agreement with the appellants for a period of five years for running the school on 14.1 1.2018, as such agreement was in existence till November, 2023, but in the meanwhile appellants issued legal notice dated O5.O7 .2021, by terminating the lease agreement, for which respondent Society issued reply notice on 14.O7.2021 and three years after the reply notice, sr.rbsequent to the accepting rental payment it is stated that appellants are interfering with the subject property. In a legal notice dated

07.O2.2024, respondent Society invoked the arbitration clause

9.2 ol lease agreement dated 14.11.2018, calling upon the arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. Admittedly, it was an unregistered and unstamped lease deed entered into by the parties only for a period of five years, as such the arbitration in the said clause cannot be invoked by the tenant that too after the period of lease in November, 2023, but the respondent approached the appellants for execution of renewed lease deed and they orally agreed to be remained in possession and respondent also issued two cheques each for an amount of Rs.2,29,5OO/- dated 70.O4.2024. Appellants have issued the notice of termination on 04.O7.2O21, terminating the lease deed dated 14.11.2018. The trial Court observed that respondent Society was running a school in the subject 7 premises and if the appellants interfere with the functioning the of the school, there is every possibility of causing damage to the academic year of the students and no injury or irreparable loss would be caused to the appellants if the injunction is granted and accordingly allowed the application.

11. Admittedly, lease deed was in existence only for five years as it was unregistered and unstamped lease deed. It is settled principle of law that a person who approached the Court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which has bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. It is the dufy of the party asking for an injunction to bring to the notice of the Court all facts material to the determination of his right to have injunction and it is not an excuse for him to say that he was not aware of the importance of iany facts which he has omitted to bring forward. Where plaintiff does not act bona fidely and does not put every material facts before the Court, the Court is within its inherent power to refuse to grant him injunction, even though there might be facts upon which injunction might be grant. Conduct of the plaintiff is very material in brining the case and disclosing the facts before the Court. Plaintiff is required to make fullest possible I i I j t. I : [, ,, I t I Ir it, t, I,l I I 'i 8 disclosure of all material facts within his knowleclge to the Court and if he does not make that fullest possibie disclosure, he : cahnot obtain any advantage iiom the proceedings and is tiable :l' to:be deprived of any advantage he might have already obtained by means of the order which has thus wrongly been obtained by him by concealment of material facts. Moreover though the !i r,,)piriod of lease was completed, respondent Society again revoked the arbitration clause mentioned in the lease deed, but the trial Cor-rrt without considering thc same , allowed the application, which is patently erroneous. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to set aside the Order of the trial Court. i1

12., In the result, the present Civit Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by setting aside the Orcler of the trial Court in Arb.O.P-No.34 of 2024, dated 01.O7.2024. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.(with records) 2. One CC to SRl. DUWA PAVAN KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. T NATRAJ, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies kuugh fr ._.' -----r, ,:) )-. '( * rL.E -' t/i 2 6 AUE 2025 'tr ?_ * qTCH HIGH COURT DATED:O210512025 + DECREE JUDGMENT CMA.No.576 ot 2024 ALLOWING ]'HE CMA WTfHOUT COSTS (. o,lqub X*" I l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA And CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 576 OF 2024 Between: '1. Mr. Divi Satchandra Kiran, S/o Dr Murali K Divi Aged about 42 years, Occ. Rlo. B-2-2931821N924, Road No. 47, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500033 Represented by his GPA Holder, Mr. Paruchuri Jagadish

2. Mrs. Nilima Motaparti, D/o Murali K Divi Aged 36 years, Occ. R/o. B-2- 2931821N367, Road No. 24, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500033 Represented by her GPA Holder, Mr. Paruchuri Jagadish ...APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS AND M/s. Wisdom Mines Educational Society, D. No. 6-3-1 177n13, Minster's Q. No. 9, Behind Lifestyle building, Kundanbagh, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Represented by its authorized signatory V. Kesevan, S/o Sri S.V. Venkatesan Aged 38 years, Occ. Business, R/ o- Door No. 7 -1-771E111303, Dharam Karan Road, Ameerpet ...RESPONDENT/ Petitioner Appeal Under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 01-07-2024 in Arb.O.P.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the orders of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Duwa Pavan Kumar, Advocate for the Appellants and Sri Natraj, Advocate forthe Respondent . ,-* This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed. 2. That the Order dated 01-07-2024 in Arb. O.p.No. 14 ot 2004 passed by the learned XXV - Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad'. be and hereby is set aside.

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. ilrguG coP!// Sd/. I. NAGA LAKSHMI INT REGISTRAR The XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civit Court at Hv erabad. Two C.D.Copies 6t5ct.ro\u gffrcE-B- To 1 2 trt \k HIGH COURT DATED:02/05/2025 DECREE CMA.No.576 ol 2024 ALLOWING TI{E CMA WITHOUT COSTS ^""e"1&